Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T22:32:40.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fairy Tales Surrogate Mothers Tell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

George J. Annas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How did surrogate motherhood evolve from a hare-brained, fly by night idea of the late 1970s into one that had at least some mainstream, middle-class support in the mid-1980s? Many explanations have been suggested. Although the rate of infertility has not increased, infertility is no longer a secret, and there are major public support groups, like RESOLVE, that advocate for infertile couples. New and powerful techniques like IVF (in vitro fertilization) have been developed, and although they help very few people, they have been widely publicized and approved. And babies are fashionable again. As one movie critic put it: Men and women do not fall in love with each other in the movies anymore. They fall in love with babies. Babies are the new lovers—unpredictable, uncontrollable, impossible and irresistible.

These explanations all have some merit. But the core of surrogate motherhood lies in the modern fairy tale that babies can properly be viewed as a consumer product for those with money to purchase them, and that by permitting this transaction we will all live happily ever after. As a product babies have been hyped by slick, white, middle-class professionals and advertised in the free-market environment of the 1980s. We are asked not to look behind the resulting children to see their lower-middle-class and lower-class mothers.

Type
Civil Liberties
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 16 , Issue 1-2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 27 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

John, G.et al., “Infertile or Childless by Choice? A Multipractice Survey of Women Aged 35 and 50,” British Medical Journal, 294 (1987): 804; Mosher, W.D. Pratt, W.F., “Fecundity and Infertility in the United States, 1965–82,” NCHS Advance Data, 104 (Feb. 11, 1985): 1; Mosher, , “Reproductive Impairments in the United States, 1965–82,” Demography, 22 (1985): 415; West, C.P., “Age and Infertility,” British Medical Journal, 294 (1987): 853; Menken, J. Trussell, J. Larsen, U., “Age and Infertility,” Science, 233 (1986): 1389.Google Scholar
There have been fewer than 2,000 IVF births in the U.S. to date, compared with more than 4 million U.S. births annually.Google Scholar
Ephron, D., “In This Year's Movies Baby Knows Best,” New York Times, March 13, 1988, A&L sec., p. 1. See also Kohn, A., “Parenthood Pabulum,” Psychology Today (July/Aug. 1988): 64–65.Google Scholar
Keane, N. Breo, D., The Surrogate Mother (New York: Everest House, 1981), 27.Google Scholar
Id.: 29–30. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
Id.: 30. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
Id. 37.Google Scholar
Id.: 79. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
Id.: 82. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
Id.: 53.Google Scholar
Kane, E., Birthmother (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988), 275. And see Chesler, P., “What Is a Mother?,” Ms., May 1988, 26–39.Google Scholar
Aral, S. Cates, W., “The Increasing Concern with Infertility: Why Now?,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 250 (1983): 2327.Google Scholar
Barron, J., “Views on Surrogacy Harden After Baby M Ruling,” New York Times, April 2, 1987, Sec. B2, p. 1. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
In the Matter of Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1234 (N.J. 1988).Google Scholar
Harlow, H.F., “The Nature of Love,” American Psychologist, 13 (1958): 673; Harlow, Blazek, N.C. McClearn, G.E., “Manipulative Motivation in the Infant Rhesus Monkey,” Journal of Comparative Physiology & Psychology, 14 (1956): 44.Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Death Without Dignity for Commercial Surrogacy,” Hastings Center Report, 18, 2 (April/May 1988): 21, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, I., “Feminists See Unfair Maternal Norm in Baby M Case,” New York Times, March 20, 1987, at 13.Google Scholar
Baby, M, supra note 14, at 1241. And see Surrogate Parenting Assoc. v. Kentucky, 704 S.W.2d 209 (Ky. 1986) (dissenting opinion).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.: 1247.Google Scholar
Id.: 1249.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).Google Scholar
Murray v. Vandevander, 522 P.2d 302, 304 (Okla. App. 1974).Google Scholar
Annas, G. J., “Baby M: Babies (and Justice) for Sale,” Hastings Center Report, 17, 3 (June 1987): 12, discussing In the Matter of Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128 (1987).Google Scholar
McPherson, J.M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 38.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.: 38–39. For a modern retrospective on how slavery destroyed families, see Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize—winning Beloved (New York: Knopf, 1987).Google Scholar
See Radin, M.J., “Market-Inalienability,” Harvard Law Review, 100 (1987): 1849.Google Scholar
Id.: 1930.Google Scholar
Id.: 1931; and see Corea, G., The Mother Machine (New York: Harper Sc Row, 1985), 221–24.Google Scholar
Ms. Kane has since repudiated her role. See Kane, , supra note 11.Google Scholar
Geraldo, “The Happy Surrogates,” aired Sept. 29, 1987.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Baby, M, supra note 25.Google Scholar
Baby, M, supra note 14, at 1268 (contract clause 13).Google Scholar
Kolder, V.E.B. Gallagher, J. Parsons, M.T., “Court-Ordered Obstetrical Interventions,” New England Journal of Medicine, 316 (1987): 1192. And see Note, “Maternal Rights and Fetal Wrongs: The Case Against the Criminalization of ‘Fetal Abuse,’” Harvard Law Review, 101 (1988): 994.Google Scholar
In re A.C., 533 A.2d 611 (D.C. App. 1987), vacated 539 A.2d 203 (D.C. App. 1988). And see Annas, G.J., “She's Going to Die: The Case of Angela C.,” Hastings Center Report, 18, 1 (Feb./March 1988): 23–25.Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Protecting the Liberty of Pregnant Patients,” New England Journal of Medicine, 316 (1987): 1213; and Annas, G.J., Judging Medicine (Clifton, N.J., 1988), 119–25.Google Scholar
Baby, M, supra note 14, at 1254, n. 13. The entire note 13 is irrelevant to the Baby M opinion itself, and is seriously flawed as a matter of constitutional analysis.Google Scholar
Id.: 1244–46. See also Wolf, S., “Enforcing Surrogate Motherhood Agreements: The Trouble with Specific Performance,” NYLS Human Rights Annual, 4 (1987): 375.Google Scholar
Baby, M, supra note 14, at 1257–61.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Robertson, J., “Embryos, Families, and Procreative Liberty: The Legal Structure of the New Reproduction,” Southern California Law Review, 59 (1986): 939, 995–1000.Google Scholar
Elias, S. Annas, G.J., Reproductive Genetics and the Law (Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publishers, 1987). On the centrality of birth to motherhood, see Rabuzzi, K.A., Motherself: A Mythic Analysis of Motherhood (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
Cf. Radin, supra note 29, at 1925–26.Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Making Babies Without Sex: The Law and the Profits,” American Journal of Public Health, 74 (1984): 1415, 1417.Google Scholar